AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 249 wordsPranay Verma, J
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged notice dated 14.08.2025 issued by the respondents under section 309 of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 read with Rule 7(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 2012.
From perusal of the impugned notice it is observed that the same is only a show cause notice and no order has passed against the petitioner. Reply has already been filed by the petitioner to the notice.
The apprehension of the petitioner is that without deciding the case their property would be demolished. The said apprehension is totally misconceived. If reply has been filed by the petitioner it cannot be said that without considering the same and giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and without passing a reasoned and speaking order any action in the matter would be taken by the respondents. 4. In the available facts of the case, the respondents are directed to afford the petitioners opportunity of hearing and to consider their reply and to act in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order. Till the same is done no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner.
In case any adverse order is passed against the petitioner he be afforded a breathing period of 10 days for assailing the same in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, petition stands disposed off.